I only trust European pharma...honestly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harris Snatching Patents
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Hannity certainly didn't think so if you caught his rather shocked reaction. And just a few days later he told those at a conservative Christian convention that if he's elected, they would never have to bother voting again.
The background needed to put this into perspective in what Trump did and didn't do on January 6th and the days both before and after.
Three things:
- Trump couldn't become a dictator on day one. It would take a little time if it is possible at all.
- You must know that if Trump could seize that power that he would never let it go willingly.
- If his words can be used against him, they should be. It doesn't matter how serious he was or wasn't.
You were asked regarding that comment whether, "you think that qualifies him to be President?"
Your comment doesn't answer that question, just that you don't think that Trump should be in the race, which I assume means that you wouldn't vote for him, but not necessarily. Some "double haters" (not my term) would still vote for one or the other, meaning that even though they didn't like either candidate, they preferred voting for one over not voting, voting third party, or writing in a candidate.
Is that what you meant - that you wouldn't vote for Trump (or Biden)? Voters have no say over who chooses to run for office except at the primary level, and this year, they didn't get that with the current Democratic nominee, although the people's embrace of her has been phenomenal, so I think we can assume that more people are happy with Harris than the man they chose to be the party's nominee.
That was a response to, "The rest of the plan is set out in the "2025" document. Add to that the immunity that "his" SCOTUS has given him and if you are not frightened you should be."
What's a conspiracy? It's two or more people planning something unsavory in private what they don't want others to know, although we could also call a surprise birthday party a conspiracy if all we require is secret planning that is not malevolent.
Was the Project 2025 document released or leaked? My understanding is that it was leaked. That link doesn't confirm that, just that training videos were leaked. Project 2025 is apparently the name of a group of people that generated a Project 2025 document.
My point is that if the document was leaked, it can be called a conspiracy in the malevolent sense, and if it was released after being drawn up secretly, that's a little different.
But the point was that the combination of the threat that Project 2025 poses and Trump's likely proclivity to understand the SCOTUS judgment as permission to commit crimes at will and that they will have his back if he does is indeed a threat to ordinary Americans and to a lesser extent, the world.
Agreed. Trump is likely done, but Trumpism will remain.
I understand why you want to limit discussion only to conservative talking points and why you attempt to redirect discussion away from Trump, but that's not going to happen. Nor should it. For the left, Trump is the issue, not how Kamala will handle drug patents.
As I implied, for patriotic Americans who value the Constitution, freedom, and democracy, there is only one principal issue, all others being subordinate: To foil Trump, the Republicans, and MAGA preserve these. Many prominent, non-MAGA Republicans for whom country means more than party or a cult of personality have endorsed Kamala and gave that as their reason.
You do realize that you have no say in how the Democrats comport themselves, but neither do I or most other people.
You object while I approve, but we're both outsiders watching. It's the Kamala Harris show now. She'll control what information is released and how it is released, which so far is in speeches and position papers, and somewhat through proxies like Walz, but not press conferences or through press secretaries.
Neither of us had any say in how she became the nominee. It doesn't matter that you think Democratic voters were disenfranchised nor that I think that there is no issue there.
And Kamala decides how she wants her nominating convention to unroll, who appears in what order, what is discussed, and how many times Trump or a specific issue are mentioned. You can object, but it's like you objecting to the prices or the service at a restaurant. If you don't like it, don't go there, and if you don't like Kamala or the Democrats, don't vote for her or them.
You also have no say over how RF posters respond to you. Only the site with its TOS and the law do. If they want to discuss Trump and Harris both when you want them to discuss only Harris, you won't get your way, nor should you. You want to call Harris a dictator without Trump's name being mentioned in the last week before an election between the two of them.
Think of this more as a presidential debate, where's you're Trump calling Harris a Communist or a dictator. How do you think she should respond? Only using the word "I" or including the word "you"? Should she submit to his preference? Of course not, and neither should Harris supporters agree to yours.
Imagine Trump objecting when she rejected his rules, and complaining, "I'm all you think about" then adding [your words] "My issue is I ask what [your] policies are and all I get back is Trump sucks or some version of that."
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Oh, OK. How do you feel about Kamala?
A very well supported theory.
How the heck did you get to that from anything I wrote?
I detest Trump (well I try not to make it personal) and everything he stands for. Bernie is my hero!
We Never Know
No Slack
Actually I was asked...
Stupid comments don't qualify or disqualify someone from the presidency IMO
So using my pretty clear picture of the guy, as I said neither Trump nor Biden should have been in the race.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Stomping your feet doesn't make the damning evidence disappear.
When the conspirators openly publish
& advocate their plan, it's really just an
ordinary plan....albeit a fiendish one.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Remember that theocracy and liberty are mutually exclusive.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
No comment about high level religious leaders.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't know a lot about the industry, but it seems to me that standards in the EU are also quite a lot higher when it comes to quality control etc.
Meds that are approved for sale in the US aren't automatically approved in the EU.
And in fact, many meds that get approval in the US fail to get approval in the EU.
In general, what kind of bothers me about the whole pharma / health industry in the US, is that it smells far too much like a luxury product.
Health care should be treated more like a public service.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh, I am not forgetting that.
We Never Know
No Slack
What I find interesting is the dems say if Kamala wins she will do this and this and this and...
They seem to be overlooking she has been in the white house since Jan 2021.
When asked why hasn't she already done those things, they blame the repubs that control the house...
Again over looking in 21 and 22 the dems had control of the house, senate and president.
In her speech when talking about her mother Michelle Obama said "She and my father didn't aspire to be wealthy. In fact, they were suspicious of folks who took more than they needed,"
She left out she and Barack are worth over $70 million. Should we be suspicious?
She also said when speaking about Kamala ""Something wonderfully magical is in the air, isn't it?" she said, receiving huge applause on the second night of the convention. "We're feeling it here in this arena, but it's spreading all across this country we love. A familiar feeling that's been buried too deep for too long. You know what I'm talking about? It's the contagious power of hope!"
Is she saying Joe's run didnt bring/had no hope?
Last edited:
..., free sex, and affordably priced rock and roll!
I'll stick with cheap drugs...., free sex, and affordably priced rock and roll!
Most rock'n roll is boring.
Not this....
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
You've lived in this country long enough to know that vice presidents don't run the administration, although they can break ties in the Senate. Kamala Harris had to do that to get us the infrastructure bill, which has been a huge benefit to the country. You also know that politicians in campaigns make a lot of promises but almost never accomplish all of their goals.
These promises express what her legislative and administrative priorities will be. Whether she can accomplish them depends a lot on Congress and a Supreme Court that doesn't act like a third house of Congress. No president has a magic wand to make everything happen, although Donald Trump acts as if he can rule by decree. Even when a party has narrow majorities in both houses, that doesn't guarantee that they can get legislation through Congress.
The Senate still requires a supermajority and can slow down or kill legislation with a filibuster from the opposing party. And not every Democratic or Republican elected official will back the party's agenda. Still, the administration did get a lot accomplished in its first two years, even with the obstacles, and they managed even to get a number of legislative victories when the House was controlled by Republicans and the Senate evenly split.
You are suspicious of Democrats no matter how much wealth they accumulate, but we should all be suspicious of the very wealthy, especially if they gained and maintained that wealth with the help of fraudulent means, like Trump has. Generally speaking, those with great wealth should also pay a fair share of taxes, since it costs the government a lot to safeguard their wealth through business infrastructure and a reliable legal system. Great wealth requires a lot of people working to make it happen, not just the person at the top who reaps the greatest benefit.
No, she was obviously talking about hope for the future, not the past. Democrats have great hopes for the future, even though there is a lot of work to be done. That requires a lot more Americans feeling positive about the future, especially our young people. The Harris-Walz campaign does seem to have had a positive impact on young people.
We Never Know
No Slack
She hasn't done much. I have no reason to think that will change.
I'm suspicious of anyone who's words and actions don't match up. Their party has nothing to do with it.
"When you think about it, it’s kind of brutal toward Kamala Harris’s predecessor as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Michelle Obama was quite clearly implying that the party, and perhaps the country, had lost hope under Joe Biden, and that it took Harris to bring that hope back."
Michelle Obama articulated something Democrats have been afraid to say
The party had lost hope. Now it has it back.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Reality bites, but it is realityShe hasn't done much. I have no reason to think that will change.
I'm suspicious of anyone who's words and actions don't match up. Their party has nothing to do with it.
"When you think about it, it’s kind of brutal toward Kamala Harris’s predecessor as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Michelle Obama was quite clearly implying that the party, and perhaps the country, had lost hope under Joe Biden, and that it took Harris to bring that hope back."
Michelle Obama articulated something Democrats have been afraid to say
The party had lost hope. Now it has it back.www.vox.com
We Never Know
No Slack
What's reality?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
That which people try to explain that you think should be otherwise